Esposito v. Gary
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:18-cv-11245
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Esposito v. Gary, Judge Gardephe dismissed the complaint, granted and denied motions, and denied appeal fee-waiver status.
The judgment affects Esposito, Gary, Chestnut, the named law-firm defendants, and the Gary defendants’ counterclaims against Esposito. It dismissed Esposito’s complaint, granted dismissal of the counterclaims without prejudice, denied Esposito’s competing motion, and denied appeal fee-waiver status.
What happened
Luisa Castagna Esposito sued Willie Gary, Cristopher Chestnut, and related law firms. The judgment followed earlier court orders addressing the complaint and a recommendation from Judge Wang that the claims be dismissed for failing to state a claim.
The court adopted that recommendation as to Gary, but not as to Chestnut. It nevertheless dismissed the claims against both Gary and the Chestnut defendants for failing to state a claim, so the complaint was dismissed entirely. The Gary defendants’ motion to dismiss their counterclaims against Esposito without prejudice was granted, while Esposito’s motion to dismiss those counterclaims for failure to prosecute was denied.
The court also denied as moot Esposito’s requests for oral argument and discovery about the counterclaims. Judge Gardephe certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Esposito permission to proceed without paying appeal fees; the case was closed.
The detailed version
- Esposito v. Gary · No. 1:18-cv-11245
- Paul Gardephe
- Aug. 12, 2025
Background
The judgment concerns Luisa Castagna Esposito’s Second Amended Complaint against Willie Gary, Cristopher Chestnut, and the associated law firms identified in the caption. Judge Wang’s 2024 report and recommendation concluded that the Second Amended Complaint should be dismissed against both defendants for failure to state a claim. The judgment states that only Gary moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.
Rulings on the Complaint
The court adopted Judge Wang’s recommendation as to Gary and did not adopt it as to Chestnut. The court dismissed the claims against Gary for failure to state a claim and also dismissed the claims against the Chestnut defendants for failure to state a claim. Because the Chestnut defendants were the last remaining defendants, the court dismissed the Second Amended Complaint in its entirety. These were threshold rulings that the complaint did not adequately state legally viable claims; the judgment does not describe a trial or merits determination beyond that pleading issue.
Counterclaims and Other Motions
The Gary defendants moved to dismiss their counterclaims against Esposito without prejudice, meaning the judgment did not bar refiling those counterclaims on that basis. The court granted that motion. It denied Esposito’s motion to dismiss the Gary defendants’ counterclaims for failure to prosecute. It denied as moot Esposito’s requests for oral argument and permission to seek discovery concerning the counterclaims.
Appeal and Case Status
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal. The case was closed. Judge Gardephe is identified in the supplied case information; the judgment itself is dated August 12, 2025 and was entered by the clerk’s office.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.